Special Land Use & Housing Committee Meeting – June 13, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Special Land Use and Housing Committee Meeting – June 13, 2024
The Land Use and Housing Committee met on June 13, 2024, to consider a consent agenda, the Blueprint SD General Plan Refresh, the University Community Plan Update, and the Hillcrest Focus Plan Amendment. The committee approved the consent agenda and both the Blueprint SD and University plans, while discussion on the Hillcrest plan was ongoing at the end of the provided transcript.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1: Declare 40 sq ft of city-owned property on Sorrento Valley Road as exempt surplus land and authorize sale to adjacent owner Belmont LP.
- Item 2: Accept a 55-acre land donation from Mission Trails Regional Park Foundation for open space and the Multiple Species Conservation Program.
- Item 3: First amendment to agreement with SBCS Corporation for domestic violence shelter operations.
- Item 4: Third amendment to agreement with PATH San Diego for coordinated street outreach.
- All four items were approved unanimously (4-0) without discussion or pull requests.
Public Comments & Testimony
Public comment was heard on each agenda item. Key themes included support for increased housing density near transit, concerns about infrastructure deficits, environmental review deficiencies, and the need to protect historic and cultural resources.
Discussion Items
Item 5: Blueprint SD Initiative – General Plan Refresh
- Staff Presentation: Nathan Cosman and Suchi Lucas presented the Blueprint SD update, which aligns the General Plan with the Climate Action Plan, introduces a Climate Smart Village Areas map, and creates a programmatic EIR to streamline future community plan updates. The plan aims to meet climate and housing goals by focusing growth near transit.
- Public Comments: Many speakers supported the plan, including Biocom California, NAIOP, the Building Industry Association, and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, citing workforce housing needs and economic benefits. Opposition came from the Sierra Club, Climate Action Campaign, and community members who argued the PEIR is legally deficient, relies on unfunded transit, and fails to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled. Some residents expressed concerns about lack of public input and overdevelopment.
- Committee Discussion: Councilmember Whitburn and Chair Lee asked clarifying questions about the relationship between Blueprint SD and community plan updates, infrastructure planning, and the tiering of environmental review. Councilmember Lee emphasized the housing crisis and the need for growth in high-resource areas. Council President Elo-Rivera noted the tension between state law and local ability to mandate affordable housing.
- Key Outcomes: The committee voted 4-0 to recommend approval of Blueprint SD to the City Council.
Item 6: University Community Plan Update
- Staff Presentation: Suchi Lucas presented the update, which adds capacity for 30,000 homes and 72,000 jobs, with a maximum density of 218 dwelling units per acre near transit stations. Key features include supplemental development regulations (SDRs) for public spaces, affordable housing requirements, a one-way couplet on Governor Drive, and 166 acres of open space dedication.
- Public Comments: Over 50 in-person speakers and 19 virtual speakers testified. Supporters included the YIMBY Democrats, Biocom, NAIOP, the Chamber of Commerce, and many residents who emphasized the need for housing near jobs and transit. Opponents, including the University Community Planning Group (UCPG) and community groups like UC Peeps, argued the plan is overbuilt, lacks infrastructure (parks, schools, fire stations), and will worsen traffic and displacement. The UCPG advocated for a lower-density alternative (145 du/acre). A speaker noted that 87% of public comments at the Planning Commission were opposed.
- Committee Discussion: Chair Lee (District 6, which includes UC) led extensive discussion. He acknowledged the housing crisis and the difference between capacity and production, noting that only about 10% of capacity in recent plan updates has been built. He expressed concern about the Governor Drive lane reduction and requested additional traffic analysis considering schools. Council President Elo-Rivera raised questions about park deficits, the feasibility of affordable housing requirements, and the need for safety valves. He also suggested moving SDRs into the Land Development Code for consistency.
- Key Outcomes: The committee voted 4-0 to recommend adoption of the University Community Plan Update to the City Council, with a request from Chair Lee for further traffic analysis on Governor Drive to account for school impacts.
Item 7: Hillcrest Focus Plan Amendment
- Staff Presentation: Shannon Kor presented the amendment, which proposes up to 17,000 new homes, a one-way couplet on University and Robinson avenues, an LGBTQ+ Cultural District, and a historic district. The plan includes SDRs for public spaces, legacy business protections, and an entertainment zone.
- Public Comments: Supporters included the Hillcrest Business Association, the LGBTQ Historic Task Force, and many residents who highlighted the need for housing, safety improvements, and cultural preservation. Opponents, including the Uptown Planners and Uptown United, argued the plan is too dense, lacks infrastructure, will cause gentrification, and the one-way streets will harm businesses. They requested a lower-density alternative and elimination of the 290 du/acre category.
- Committee Discussion: Councilmember Whitburn asked staff about the timeline for the one-way couplet (further study needed), the relationship between park fees and public space requirements, and highlighted quality-of-life improvements such as the cultural district, pedestrian safety, and expanded business hours. The transcript ends before a vote is recorded.
- Key Outcomes: No vote was captured in the provided transcript. The committee continued discussion; the item was likely to be voted on later in the meeting or continued to a future date.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Agenda: Approved 4-0.
- Blueprint SD: Recommended to City Council for adoption (4-0).
- University Community Plan Update: Recommended to City Council for adoption (4-0), with a request for additional traffic analysis on Governor Drive.
- Hillcrest Focus Plan Amendment: Discussion ongoing; no vote recorded in the provided transcript.
Meeting Transcript
Good afternoon. If we can have everyone take a seat, we'll begin in just a moment. Okay, good afternoon. Welcome to the special land use and housing committee meeting of June 13th, 2024. Our committee lays on Natalie Kessler. We'll go over instructions for today's meeting. Thank you, Chair. While members of the public are able to attend the meetings in person, this meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website, and the council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide virtual testimony must enter the virtual queue by raising their hand before the queue closes. The queue will close when the last virtual speaker finishes speaking or five minutes after in-person testimony ends, whichever occurs first. Additionally, during the consent portion of the agenda, speakers will have one minute per item up to a maximum of three minutes if there are three or more items in that portion of the agenda. This will allow for better meeting management between the two platforms and ensure the committee is able to manage and conduct city business. Councilmember Whitburn? Councilmember Moreno. Present. And Chair, Councilmember Lee. Also attending the meeting today, Chris Ackermanovila with the mayor's office, Corinne Newfer from the City Attorney's Office, and Ray Sheen Chen with the independent budget analyst office. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it on top of the box indicated at the speaker's lecture at the front of the room. Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management. In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins. Members of the public can also join the Zoom webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is located online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage. To join the Zoom webinar by telephone, please dial 16692545252. The webinar ID is 161-286-5933 pound. This information is also available on the agenda and will appear on the screen during the public comment period for each agenda item. Please note that if you are watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be a delay. Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak. If you wish to speak on a particular item, please wait for that item to be called and then raise your hand. Or uh sorry, then raise your hand to speak by tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you're a call and participant, star nine on your phone. If you raise your hand during a non-comment period, your hand will be lowered. Chair? Thank you, Natalie, for reviewing this uh instructions for the benefit of the public. A quorum is now present, and so we will now dispense with the approval of the committee minutes of May 17th, 2024. Uh please proceed with the comment. Thank you, Chair. The public comment period for the past committee minutes of May 17th, 2024 is now open. And Chair, we have not received any speaker slips from individuals in chambers on the past committee minutes. There are currently three hands raised in the virtual queue. As a reminder to those in the virtual queue, this is public comment period for the past committee minutes. We will begin with Alex Wong. Please provide your comments. You'll have one minute. Alex Wong, I've given you permission to speak. Okay, we will come back to you. The original, please provide your comments. Yes, I want to be very specific on what I said in non-agenda public comment. It was talking about dropping and um the people crossing the border, um, dropping a military ID tag from a foreign military, and that's why it's concerning. It's a Muslim ID tag that was dropped by a Muslim soldier, which should be very concerning with all the other items that they discarded the border, like a bunch of child birth certificates, child documents. Why would you do that if you were seeking asylum and coming across to do that? These children disappear. So you guys need to be more specific when you are writing down what people are saying, because it is a national security risk and a threat to our nation when foreign militaries are invading the border.
openpublica.com